Was this intentional?

Was this intentional?

>any kubrick film ever
>"was this intentional"

The answer is almost 99% likely to be YES.

Was this intentional?

not visible in correct aspect ratio

>any kubrick film ever
>"was this intentional"
The answer is almost 99% likely to be RETARDED FANS CAME UP WITH THIS.

Was the autist who was obsessed with every fine detail in his film intentional about some obvious symbolism

Probs lol

Was this intentional

Bravo, Kubrick.

the real question is why is jack even on a picture from the 20's

Everything Kubrick did was intentional -- including any "mistakes [I say "mistakes" because if it's intentional, it cannot be a mistake].

Every interpretation of Kubrick is correct and he was, in fact, killed due to poisoning members of the illuminati for not releasing the undoctored moon-landing footage.

testing 123

Short answer: Yes, Kubrick only did things to amuse himself. According to R Lee Emmy, Kubrick could give a fuck what you thought his intentions were

He was absorbed by the hotel because of his descent into evil.

But why did it send him back in time

To protect Naxmilian Connor II, Sarah Connors grand father

But why was he on a picture he had no business being on instead of a ghost. We already know that there are ghosts in the hotel.

>But why did it send him back in time
it didnt

>Was this intentional?

It's one of Kubrick's alteration of the souce material. It makes perfect sense if you read it beforehand.

It was just a representation of him becoming one with the hotel. It would have been stupid to show him as a ghost at the end.

And which one is that?

Is that a young Jack Nicholson in the front center on the left pic?